Legal Opinion

Aronson v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 16, 2001PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, J.:

¶ 1 Appellants, Mark B. Aronson and Joseph G. Kanfoush, ask us to determine whether the trial court properly dismissed their single count equity complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We hold that Sprint’s wireless services provider, Sprint Spectrum, is not regulated by the Commonwealth and that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is the proper forum to address Appellants’ claim. We further hold that Appellant has not made out a prima facie claim for invasion of privacy. Accordingly, we affirm.

¶ 2 The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal were…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Harris by Harris v. Easton Pub. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. McGuire v. ShubertSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. Crown Communications v. Zoning Hearing BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Railway Labor Executives Association v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
  5. Fetterman v. GreenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Werner v. Plater-ZyberkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Commonwealth v. DanyshSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Estate of CiuccarelliSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  5. Roman, B. v. McGuire MemorialSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API